ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

737 Words3 Pages

Have you ever been watching a movie or a crime T.V. show and there is a police officer arresting someone and saying something along the lines of, “You have the right to remain silent..”? Not only does that happen in shows and movies, it does happen in real life. The Miranda Rights were officially established in 1966 when Ernesto Miranda, was arrested and confessed to his crimes but his confession was later thrown out because the officer who arrested im did not read Miranda his rights. Officially, every police officer who is taking someone into custody must recite the Miranda rights. Now, does Miranda v. Arizona ensure justice and preserve liberty? Some people might say that it does, only for the reason that if you are not read your rights and you confess, it will not be held against you, Miranda v. Arizona can make most of us feel that the first amendment is true, that we do have freedom of speech, and lastly because it gives us the right to decide what to do about the situation.

If you have committed a very minor crime and you get caught, would you confess? Eventually, you would. What if you were not read …show more content…

Also, so is someone, specifically a person in authority, giving us the freedom of speech. Miranda v. Arizona does just that, when someone reads out the rules to us it can give some a sense of relief. One would think, “Oh great, I do not have to say this if I do not want to.” It does preserve freedom, and liberty, in the sense that we have the choice on whether or not we can confess or not. In one article it states, “...anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questions:” (p.1) and one of them is the famous saying, “you have the right to remain silent,” which means that if you do not want to say anything you have every right not to tell the officer anything. That would give citizens some freedom of speech and we would not be punished for

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of Miranda V Arizona 384 US 436

    529 Words  | 3 Pages

    Can the confession Miranda gave be used in trial against him? In a 5-4 decision, the court determined that in order for an interrogation and the statements made on behalf of the defendant to be considered as evidence, and in order to protect the accused, the accused needs to be aware of the fact that he/she has the right to an attorney, aware of self incrimination, and will need to voluntarily give up their right to these things if they choose to do so. In this case it was decided that it was not acceptable to use the confession Miranda made against him, and his rights were violated. If any of these criteria are not met, any statements made during an interrogation cannot be used against the defendant, otherwise their rights would be violated. This case is very significant because it changed the way officers perform their duties, and all accused must be read their miranda

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    694 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

    734 Words  | 3 Pages

    It was later noticed upon an appeal to the state Supreme Court that the officer who arrested Miranda, did not state his basic rights and was affirmed. (legaldictionary.net, Procedural History). This also means that Miranda couldn’t be set free because he did not ask to have an to be attorney present. But, Miranda and other defendants with similar cases petitioned to the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate the case and to have another ruling. The overall ruling of the final case to have it mandatory to read these specific rights was passed and are vital to the process of being arrested and

    Read More

  • Miranda's Confession, Injustice In Pheonix, Arizona

    364 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.

    Read More

  • Essay On Miranda V. Arizona 384 US 436

    799 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was a case that was brought to the United States Supreme Court through a Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona. At the Trial Court of Arizona the written confession of Ernesto Miranda was admitted as evidence and the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the case. Id. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Id. Issue: Was the constitutional right of the V amendment that protects against self-incrimination violated in Ernesto Miranda’s case?

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    581 Words  | 3 Pages

    He was interrogated for two hours before he signed a written confession. According to the Arizona Supreme Court none of his rights were violated, but after his prison sentence he claimed that the police violated his 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. When he took this to court their decision was 5-4, this became identified as the Miranda Warning. The

    Read More

  • Summary Of Miranda V. Arizona

    672 Words  | 3 Pages

    It limits the amount of power that authorities have on a person placed under custody. The right remain silent is given to avoid self-incrimination and to inform the person of the possible consequences if he or she decides to speak. The right to an attorney is given so that a suspect can have legal advice at any given point during custody and to ensure that the suspect’s right to remain silent or to speak under interrogation is being acknowledge by the authorities. The presence of an attorney can also reduce the probability of physical brutality from police to obtain a

    Read More

  • Larry Hiibel Research Paper

    297 Words  | 2 Pages

    Larry Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault. Some states including Nevada, has a law that requires a person to tell an officer his name if asked. Larry Hiibel challenged the conviction, claiming it violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the right not to incriminate himself and to be free from unreasonable searches. The state intermediate court and Supreme Court rejected his argument in affirming the conviction. At first when I read this I think that this arrest and conviction violated Larry Hiibel Fourth and Fifth Amendment because he was arrested for the action of remaining silent but in a 5-to-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy,

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    879 Words  | 4 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart 384 U.S. 436 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974. This case involves the fifth and sixth amendments of the US constitution, as well as the grand jury indictment clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his

    Read More

  • Why Was Salinas Silence A True Exercise Of The Fifth Amendment?

    1407 Words  | 6 Pages

    Both courts affirmed the lower court’s judgment and rejected Salinas’ claim that his silence was used in chief violation of the Fifth Amendment. Issue: Can one fairly conclude that an individual who agreed to be questioned has revoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection? Was Salinas’ silence a true exercise of this amendment? Rule: The petitioner must specifically call on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the time he relies on it in order to receive the benefit. Decision: Salinas’ claim fails because he did not verbally invoke this Fifth Amendment privilege in his response to the officer’s questions.

    Read More

  • Ernesto Miranda's Fifth And Sixth Amendment Rights

    696 Words  | 3 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda, a suspect charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery, had his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights violated during a police interrogation. These injustices lead to a United States Supreme Court trial, whose outcome forever imprints our justice system. Ernesto Miranda, a resident of Phoenix, was charged for rape, kidnapping, and robbery in 1963. Miranda was identified by the victim and he was detained and interrogated by police for two hours, where he allegedly conceded to the crimes he was charged of and signed a written statement included with a typed disclaimer, without any attorney present. The police neglected to apprise Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination prior to police interrogation, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Read More

  • Miranda Warning Dbq

    883 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona case like certain colonial laws and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, many ignored the precedent and subjected individuals to torture and other inhumane interrogation tactics to acquire confessions from accused individuals. The Miranda v. Arizona case specified that the accused must be read their rights to prevent self-incrimination to prevent false confessions that stemmed from coercion, which had not been explicitly stated in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Therefore, the Miranda v. Arizona case served to fully complete the legal promise of self-incrimination that had already been guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights and previous

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

    Read More

  • We The People Chapter 4 Summary

    501 Words  | 3 Pages

    The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

    Read More

  • Forfeited Right Theory

    343 Words  | 2 Pages

    After reading about the forfeited right theory, I agree that the theory is not only ethical, but it is quite intriguing. “The rights forfeiture theory of punishment contends that punishment is justified when and because the criminal has forfeited their right not to be subjected to this hard treatment” (Wellman, 2012, p. 371). When a person is taken into custody, their rights have been taken away from them. All of their rights except the Miranda Rights in which the individual is entitled to. So that means if a person commits a crime then they have already violated thier own rights therefore, they should not be complaining about their rights being violated.

    Read More

More about Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

Open Document